NTC Essay Series
These were all written by a former OPFOR warrior during his
time at the NTC. He has since moved on to become a great
company commander in Germany.
Platoon Leaders
At this point, I am convinced that the best job in the army
is that of a platoon leader. You see, I think the proximity
to the troops, coupled with the responsibility involved is
precisely the correct level of challenge needed to keep a
job exciting. Now, I will have to confess that I think it
is even more special here at the NTC, and even more so in
the maneuver warfare that some people call the "box". I
wrote some time ago about pride, and its place in the
leadership equation. I still am a popular believer in the
thought that pride in everything one does, is a staple of
that person`s personality, and likewise of his leadership
potential.
Yeah, I wrote about leadership and pride, with only the
experience of being a Cadet Battalion Commander. OK, I did
something right along the way to get that title, and a job
of such responsibility, but it was not much. I believe that
there are certain principles that others look for in a
leader.
I hate writing this part, but I am far from a perfect
leader. I do not think there is such a thing. I do have a
tendency to look for short-cuts, but I do believe that the
ends justify the means. I do believe in regulations and I
strongly believe in the army, I just think there are some
things that are terribly wrong with this army.
Without getting too far into those things, I will say that
the best part about being a Platoon Leader is the soldiers.
Now, maybe I have good soldiers, or maybe I am just giving
them too much credit, but I think the soldiers are the meat
and potatoes in this job.
I will say that leadership is a hard subject to write
about.
Yeah, I have read all of the proper manuals on leadership,
and I have read biographies on great leaders, so the hazard
is to not write so much what I believe, but to write the
right thing to say. What I mean is, that I will say
somewhere in here that I will do anything for soldiers,
because I really do care for soldiers. OK, that is the
right answer in leadership. But, in reality, and I hate to
say it, sometimes you have to screw soldiers out of one
thing or another. I think the key is to keep focused on the
goals of the unit, and as long as those are at the heart of
every decision, then you are doing a lot of things right.
For instance, I might volunteer my soldiers for a lousy
detail, if it means that on a different particular day I do
not have to worry about losing any of them to another
detail and I can train them.
Well, let`s get to it. What do soldiers want? Well, if you
are doing it right, it is the same thing you want! Now,
that is not always possible, but I think that is the
measure of a leader.
For instance, I want my soldiers to better themselves by
taking college courses in their spare time. If I am a good
leader, over time, I can make them think that they should
want to better themselves by taking those courses. Or, I
think terrain appreciation is a key to the NTC, so it is my
challenge to make the soldiers think that if they learn the
terrain, it is a key to them doing well. Finally, I believe
the key to success here at the NTC is performance on the
battlefield. To get soldiers to recognize their roles in
the success and failures of various fights is one of the
hardest things to do, and it is that challenge which I am
going to work toward.
Soldiers, especially in tanks, have a tendency to get
tunnel vision. The drivers have huge blind spots once you
get past the front 75 or so degrees to their front. These
blinders keep them from seeing problems with formations and
make it hard for them to know internal flank security
within the tank, much less the platoon. So, they need to
have an understanding before the fight even begins as to
what all of the tanks in the unit are supposed to do.
Gunners are blinded by the fight even more. Until you sit
in a tank during an approach march and are expected to
react to a enemy which can pop up anywhere from 500 to 4000
meters, you can never really understand what the gunner has
to go through. And the loader, well he is another story. In
reality, he is even more lost once the fighting begins,
because he has to be focused on the gunner. For safety
reasons and for speed reasons, he reacts only to what the
gunner does. In the OPFOR it is different. Here he can
provide flank security, he can dismount and he gives
another set of eyes at acquiring and keeping targets in
view. The problem is that he is sometimes only a private
who really has no understanding for even the small picture.
The distance between a Lieutenant and a E-3 is huge. It is
a lot farther apart than I originally thought. After some
time here, these missions seem almost second nature to the
PLs, but the soldiers seem to go through the motions.
Officers and senior enlisted soldiers can talk about
battles from eight to ten rotations ago like they just
happened. Try having an AAR with the common soldier on the
fight that we just got Change of Mission fifteen minutes
ago, and see what happens. I am amazed when I ask soldiers
what our mission was on a certain fight, and they stutter
and stammer just to come up with an answer that ultimately
is the equivalent of "wake-up was at 0400 and we were on
the offense".
So, my new goal is to train soldiers on the bigger picture.
This can be dangerous, I understand that, but I think they
are at a level where they know their jobs and they are good
at them.
I could train these guys, and rehearse over and over again
the same drills, and that even if I were not there, the MRC
would be able to perform on the same level, well I do not
believe that anymore. No, it is that leader who will
determine the outcome of the fight. When the Commander
dies, so does his concept. His intent lives on, but the
second he is out of the picture, so is his scheme, or his
vision, or whatever you want to call it. This is especially
true at the MRC level, but it is also true at the MRB level
(that is if the MRC Commanders have no initiative and act
only on what the MRB Commander has briefed, and not on the
intent of the OPFOR). (Looking back I guess the same may be
said from the MRC point of view, but it is different). The
MRC will perform at the level of confidence and skill of
its Commander.
I also had a soldier who got pissed off the other day
because I put my tank in the forward patrol. Even though we
had a successful mission (in part because I was up front),
he was more worried at what would happen to the MRC if I
were to get killed. This goes back to what I was talking
about earlier. He has seen it, too. Hell, some MRCs work
better when the MRC Commander is dead.
So, the MRC is just the personality and competence of its
commanders. How can I say this? First of all, I have seen
MRCs perform at the level of their leadership time and time
again. Even if I had the ten most experience tank and BMP
commanders in the Regiment, if they were all determined to
follow me (which they should be, since I am their leader),
our actions would actually be my actions on a larger scale.
Does any of this make sense? Well, here goes another way of
looking at it. Here is my SOP, and if I had only one SOP,
or if I had to brief a new TC on how to be in the OPFOR in
ten words or less, here they are: Tanks stay with me; BMPs,
stay with your tanks. And you know what? That is actually
sufficient enough. That is the key to my success. In any
battle, I feel as if I can see five vehicles, the entire
MRC is doing its job. Those five vehicles are my two other
T-80s and the three BMPs in my MRP. Those tanks stay with
me, they stop when I stop, they shoot when I shoot, and
they move back out again when I move back out. Likewise,
the BMPs stay with me and shoot when I do. Tanks stay with
me; BMPs stay with your tanks. Some may argue with this,
but the caveat is that the BMPs are more than just
followers. That is just to keep good order up to the point
of the attack. It is at that point that the tanks and the
BMPs start working together to destroy the enemy. If the
BMPs are content only with dying near their tanks, then my
intent has not been made clear. My intent is that in the
movement up to a 111 (line) formation, the BMPs need the
tanks as
I somehow believe they will be better at them if they can
see at least one level over their heads, or maybe even two.
Just think about the difference in your actions if you
understand the MRR objectives than if you left in the dark.
We may come back to that, but first, the thing to realize
is that your mission as a platoon leader is to be a teacher
and a coach. There are times that soldiers need to be
treated like they are in sixth grade, and likewise there
are times they are to be treated like college students.
Also, there are times when soldiers need a good kick in the
pants, like the way only a high school football coach can
seem to do it, and there are times when they need the
locker room speeches characteristic of high school football
and basketball.
The first thing they need to be taught is their jobs. This
is done by the sergeants. Now if you have bad sergeants, it
is hard to do even this. I had a NCO who was more worried
about time off that he was about training the soldiers.
Those soldiers might have thought they were getting off
easy, and they were right. But it the long run, they were
getting screwed by that NCO, and in a hurry, they were far
behind the other soldiers. The NCOs must realize that they
are the primary teachers, and they must take pride in that
fact, and pride in the progress of their soldiers.
After the soldiers know their jobs better than everyone
else (and I write that like it is an easy thing to do, but
it isn`t) they need to be cross trained on every position
in the platoon. For instance, loaders need to learn to
drive, drivers need to gun and gunners need the experience
in the TC`s hatch. I imagine this to be the same in other
MOSs, but this is the only one I know.
Then, as a platoon, you must start training battle drills.
Whether Bluefor or OPFOR, everyone has some sort of battle
drill or ARTEP skills that can be trained at the Platoon
level. To be honest with you, if you have good TCs or Squad
Leaders, this only really needs to be at their level. But,
I will say that if everyone understands what is going on, I
will bet the platoon can accomplish its mission with a
greater amount of ease.
These battle drills are to be done over and over again,
until they are second, third, even fourth nature. You see,
because no matter how many times you do it on the ground,
once the real thing starts, if they have to think about it,
it won`t be done well. The OPFOR is easy, if you ask me. I
used to think that an MRC was an entity of its on, and the
level of training it was at would dictate how well it
fought, regardless of who was leading it. I have since
changed my mind. I used to think that
much as the tanks need the BMPs. You see, without any
tanks, the BMPs are easy targets for Bradleys and M-1s for
that matter. In the same respect, if a Mech Team can mass
all of its fires on the three tanks (because the BMPs are
too far off the firing line or hidden, cowering behind some
terrain), it will not be too long before the tanks are
stripped away. With eleven vehicles massing their fires on
a single point, it becomes harder for Bluefor to pick out
the tanks, which are the big killers. My other rule (and
when I am Bluefor it will be the similar): Shoot M-1s then
shoot Brads. Those two rules, along with the basic MRC
battle drills are the keys to my success.
OK, if it is that easy, why is it not that easy? Simple:
Combat multipliers and the speed at which we are forced to
react on the maneuver battlefield. Flexibility is the key.
Maybe I am getting more experienced, or maybe just cocky,
but I think we are at a point when we may not even need an
operations order to succeed. Just tell us where the enemy
is and what firing lines you want us to set and we will go
do it. OK, I do not quite believe that yet, but we are
getting close.
Why else is it not easy? Well, respect is the other key. I
have to respect my TCs and have to give them the
flexibility to accomplish their missions. They have to know
that I trust their judgement when it comes to action on the
battlefield, and they have to know that I will be forgiving
if they die while being aggressive, but I will get in their
asses if they die doing nothing. Remember, doing nothing
can get you killed, too.
Likewise, I have to earn their respect. I wonder if the
soldiers respect me for the job I am doing. I think they
know that my goal is to be the best MRC in the best MRB in
the OPFOR.
I think we are doing a pretty good job at that. This shows
in the fact that some of the senior soldiers are a little
upset when we do not get the FSE mission. Now a goal of
mine is that they should all be upset if we do not get it.
Anyway, I have that saying on my wall that since I am from
Missouri, you need to, "Show me! Don`t waste my time
telling me what you think you can do!" I firmly believe
that, and some of the soldiers are getting into that
attitude also. Everyone can talk, but performance is the
key. I can be a cocky little son of a bitch, but if I go
out an fail every time, where is my backing?
Respect! I think the soldiers not only respect
achievements, but they also respect how these were
accomplished. What I am saying is that to a soldier, the
ends do not always justify the means. Soldiers work harder
for a winner than they do for someone who delves in the
world of mediocrity. I actually believe that some of my
soldiers do not want to fail because they feel they will
let me down. That is the moment when I can say that this is
a great job. Some of them want me to be pleased with their
performances because it makes the platoon look good. This
is the pride in the unit which is dear to my heart.
Don`t get me wrong, though. This starts at the highest
level. I have to show them that I am disappointed with
their failures as much as I am pleased with their triumphs.
In the same respect, the top sergeant in the outfit has to
back me as well. If my platoon sergeant does not care if
chores are done on time, or early, the platoon will not
care about it either. He is as much of a key to the success
of a unit (especially in garrison) as the Platoon Leader
is, if not more. So, how do I, as a Platoon Leader with
little to no time is service, convince an E-6 or E-7 that
my goals should be his goals? Well, if the army is doing
its job, this should not be a problem, but it sometimes is.
I will just say that there are sometimes you just have to
come out and say things using as few syllables as possible
to get a message across. Like: "Listen up, Sergeant. If
these things don`t happen in a hurry, I will see to it that
someone else is performing your duties." In fact, using the
word "Sergeant" in the right tone is often very effective
because it is a quick way of letting him know what his
place is in the conversation. I would caution you to think
before you use it in the wrong tone, but remember that it
is your job to make sure he does his job.
Well, I have not had that problem, but there have been
times that I have had to tell my NCOs that one thing or
another became a priority in my mind, so it should
therefore be a priority in theirs. The NCOs are the key to
a good platoon, but to have a great platoon, there has to
be good chemistry and a good mix between the Platoon
Sergeant and the Platoon Leader.
With the movie "Braveheart" being popular right now, I will
tell you that I have been doing some research on William
Wallace.
There is decidedly not very much information on him in the
local bookstores, but I have found some bits on him. In a
book on English History, written by Winston Churchill,
Wallace is credited with coming up for a system of command
in which every three soldiers have a fourth as a leader.
Likewise, every 9 have a 10th and every 19 have a 20th.
This goes on up to the thousands. And within this chain of
command, the punishment for disobedience is death. The
establishment of a chain of command like this was unheard
of for some reason, but it was successful for this "mob" of
untrained and unskilled soldiers living in poverty and
nearly starving to death, to go off and mock outrageous
numerical advantages by defeating the English.
OK, an Article 15 is not the same as death, nor could it be
in this Army. But the key is that the chain has to be
recognized with some sense of order and fear and it has to
be backed from both ends. The NCOs have to control their
small units, and the leaders must control the NCOs. This is
a constant teaching and evaluation process. Standards of
performance must exist and these standards must never be
lowered. As soon as you lower the standards once, you have
lowered them for good.
Here is a hard thing to accomplish. When do you, as a new
Platoon Leader start changing the standards in order to
make them tougher? Well, it is hard to come into a unit and
start right away with tougher standards. I think it is
possible, but hard. I think there is a ninety day period
(in peacetime) in which you have to learn and evaluate the
platoon. Trust me, they are doing the same about you. Over
that course of time, you have to take notes of what you
think is wrong, and come up with solutions to fix it. It is
easy to point out problems, but if you are doing your job,
you will provide the solutions as well. Then, you have to
talk to a few people about the possibilities of changing
internal standards. This is obviously not the case in all
instances, but as a model it will do. You need to talk to
your Platoon Sergeant first of all. In fact, in everything
you do you need to talk to the Platoon Sergeant. It is the
constant communication between the PSG and the PL which
will make a platoon run smoothly. Well, you talk to him,
then you have these other influencing factors to talk to.
See your peers. Whether they are in your unit, or a unit at
some other post, you should talk to them. Odds are they are
seeing problems similar to yours and they may have approved
solutions in order to deal with them.
Also, if the problem can be helped at a higher level, talk
to the CO and/or the 1SG. These two will see that you are
trying to make positive advances and will most likely
support you. One thing to keep in mind is that the CO will
probably give you a lot more leeway in your first three
months, but the 1SG will expect you to prove yourself over
a much greater time. The reason for this is that the 1SG
has seen a lot of PLs come and go, so if the problem does
not involve inclusively your platoon sergeant, the 1SG may
be a later resort.
OK, there is a lot of vagueness there, but the simple model
exists. The key is communication with your Platoon
Sergeant. Whether it be with your maintenance status,
promotion points of your young sergeants, training
schedules, or personal problems with the soldiers, cross-
talking at the platoon level is required. I have stepped on
it a couple of times, in which I wish I would have just
talked to the PSG first. Besides, he is a lot closer to the
soldiers than I am.
I have been very fortunate to have three very good Platoon
sergeants in the first year of Platoon Leader time. I have
looked at other Platoons in the Company, as well as others
in the Squadron, to see that a mediocre Platoon Leader or a
mediocre Platoon Sergeant will translate into a mediocre
Platoon.
So, what makes a good soldier? Well, as SGT Mac says, "a
well informed soldier is a better soldier." This goes back
to my wanting them to be more aware on the battlefield,
although I am sure SGT Mac was referring mostly to
garrison. Keep them informed. The training schedule is
supposed to be sacred, but ours seems to be locked only in
butter most of the time. Give the soldiers at least a month
out. Let them know what is coming up for the Platoon,
Company or even Battalion. The next step is to get them
ready for it before it arrives. For instance, if there is
going to be a class taught at Company level, sit them aside
and talk about it at the Platoon level for ten minutes and
recommend some work they can read on their own to prepare
for the class. will they read it? Maybe only a few of them,
but those few are your really good soldiers, and the few
are the ones you need to reward. Make that known to them
all. Also, if there is a 9mm range coming up, Pre-Marksman
Instruction is essential. Your job (as well as your Platoon
Sergeant`s) is to make sure they are not blinded by
anything. Look at the training schedule and determine how
you can best structure your training to focus on the basics
the soldiers are required to succeed in all upcoming
missions. For instance, if you know you have an FSE mission
coming up, set them down and talk about the role and
importance of the FSE in the Advanced Guard`s mission. The
same goes with talking about priorities of work in the
upcoming defense. Another example is if you are going to
have a mission in the Northern Corridor, set them down with
the map and talk about the terrain in that corridor.
So, not only are you getting them prepared, but letting
them know what you are doing and why you are doing it. If
you have to, tell them you are trying to give them the
tools to get ahead of their peers in the Company. Do not
keep it a secret, but let them know.
Here is something else: if you are rewarding them for
performance, let them know that they are being rewarded. In
the same manner, if they are being punished, make it clear.
If a soldier is getting promoted, or getting an award, let
him know that you think his performance over the past month
is the reason he is getting his award. Let him know that
you take pride in his performance, because it makes the
team look better and it is a positive display of that
soldier. Also, the Platoon Sergeant and the Platoon Leader
need to take responsibility for punishment. If the
Commander was dissatisfied with performance in an
inspection, the Platoon leadership should not tell the
Platoon that it is the CO`s fault (if that is the right
word) that they are being punished. The same way that I
want my goals to be their goals, I need to make my goals
meet the Commander`s goals. His standards should be my
minimum standards. His standard is 245 on the PT test, my
Platoon standard needs to be 255. This is the same in all
other standards. So, if we do not meet his standards, we
most assuredly did not meet mine. So, if he directs a
certain level of retraining, I do not go to the soldiers
and tell them that we are going to go back and do it again
until the CO is happy, it is that we will do it until I am
happy. Of course, I should not be happy until he is
satisfied. Now, if his standards are unattainable, I have
to let him know that, and there are times when I have to
fight for my Platoon. But, in the long run, he will be
right, and I will have to conform to that standard. My job
is harder because he does not have to deal with the
soldiers. He commands, I lead! But, like I said, how can I
expect my soldiers to share my goals if I cannot conform to
my Commander`s standards.
So, as a Platoon Leader, I think talk should never be on
the level of, "we set at alpha two until the CO tells us to
move the hotel four." It should be "we set A2 and when I
say, we will move to H411. Likewise, this kind of talk is
intolerable: "We died because the CO told us to move." No,
we died because I told us to move. If the time was not
right to move, and the CO told us to do so, I as the
leader, should have made him aware of the fact that it was
not the right time to go. If I was unaware that it was the
wrong time, then I cannot blame him, because I was doing it
wrong anyhow. If his reconnaissance failed him, I should
have kicked out my own. The key here is to take
responsibilities for failures, no matter who is to blame.
Plus, I think excuses and blame are two things that should
not come from a leader. Understanding why you screwed up is
one thing, but to try to blame it on someone else does
little to no good. You accept responsibility and learn from
mistakes!
An odd little thing to add here, is that if the Platoon
leadership is to accept responsibility, (and some people
will not take to this kindly), you have the right to accept
credit for the platoon`s good fortunes. Listen to this
battlefield scenario: We are set at A2 and the Commander
tells me to quickly move to A3 and set a firing line,
because he is sure I will have great success there for both
the MRB and the Regiment. I tell my TCs to go to A3 and to
hurry up. OK, we get there and get annihilated, well, we
should have occupied A3 with more care or maybe with more
speed. I accept that responsibility. But, if we get to A3
in good order, and take out a Company/Team plus there,
should the leadership of the MRC get the kudos? Well, I
will tell you this, they deserve it, even though the right
answer is that they were just doing their job as they were
trained to do. Hell, we were told we would have good
effects if we could just make it to A3. But, it is how that
MRC gets there and what they do when they get there that
will determine how well they do. When I heard the Task
Force Commander tell Scorpion 07 in the AAR that he told
his Company commanders to get to the good ground, I had to
laugh. Knowing where good ground is and how to use it are
two different things. Just giving a football team
directions to the Rose Bowl, will not insure that they make
it there, and even less will it help them win the damn
thing. So, there is nothing wrong with taking credit, but
that credit should likewise be passed down to your
subordinates. My driver must have found some pretty good
ground when we got to A3. 424D had a good day, which
contributed to the success of the MRC. Look, if you, as an
MRC, have a great day, someone else was doing some killing
(but then again I remember a fight where . . . well, that
is another story).
Sometimes I do feel like this is an easy job. I tell people
that this is like being Ken Griffey Jr.`s hitting
instructor. Sometimes I just have to go out and say, "Keep
hitting the ball like you have been hitting it, Ken", and
he will. He hits .350 every year and people tell me that I
am doing a great job. But then other times I realize that I
am like the California Angels, hitting instructor (Rod
Carew in `95). In the last three years, their average has
raised .030 points and the players are hitting at their
career highs. Maybe, I am somewhere in between. Time will
tell. Patton said that the true measure of a teacher and a
leader is that he is not indispensable. Somehow I need to
train them to perform at the same level whether I am there
or not. I am going to try my hardest and I hope that what I
wrote earlier is proven untrue. It will be proven when I
move on.
One final thought here: To be the best at anything, you
have to fully immerse yourself in that subject. Whether it
be baseball, auto mechanic, salesman, or Platoon Leader. My
job, or better yet, my life is the Army. I am doing the one
thing I truly love to do, and I am fortunate (of course, I
am the kind of person, who would probably just love
anything I do; or maybe I only do the things I like and I
am good at; all of these are separate essays). I love the
Army, and I am doing OK, but I do not think it is
coincidence. In the last few weeks, I have read J.F.C.
Fuller`s Generalship of Alexander the Great, Shakespeare`s
The Life of King Henry V, Homer`s The Iliad, The Patton
Mind, Emerson`s "Self-Reliance", and I am currently reading
The Military Maxims of Napoleon. Do I think that this
knowledge of generalship will help me at the small unit
level. Yes, most definitely. Leadership does not change, it
is very much the same at the small unit as it is up high.
The only difference is experience, so maybe I can learn
from these great experiences and teachings and it will make
me better. All in all, ask my peers what the last five
books they have read were, and I dare you to come up with a
better list. Be the best in everything you do. Like the
rock on my television says, "If a man does his best, what
else is there?" That was Patton.